Frugal Living: 25 new messages in 10 topics

Tuesday, July 31, 2007

25 new messages in 10 topics - digest

misc.consumers.frugal-living
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en

misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The Anti-Tax guys won -- round 2
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/b15b2290838aeb55?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 12:09 am
From: don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein)

In article <PNvri.42327$6K3.24377@newsfe10.phx>, clams casino wrote:

(subtroll that I normally avoid getting caught agreeing with wrote)
>>Its still WAY out even on that basis.
>>
>>>http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm
>>
>>Thats nothing like an unbiased source.
>>
>Granted, they have an agenda, but it's hard to dispute their numbers as
>they are merely taken out of the published budget.

I have countered already on basis of NASA 2007 budget request details
not supporting the warresisters claiming their claim of half of NASA's
budget being military, and on basis of 80% of interest [payments on
national debt being military-blamable. On basis of considering what the
USA's national debt is now and what it was 30 years ago even after
adjusting for inflation, and considering what percent of the Federal
budget in the past 30 years is from military spending even if debt
payments and Social Sercurity are excluded.

> The big difference,
>as they clearly point out, is that the government tends to lump SS and
>other sources of tax revenue with the income taxes and then break down
>the overall expenditures. I found it more useful to see where the
>income taxes are going, exclusive of the FICA, excise and other taxes.

Exclude spending programs that FICA and other program-specific taxes
as opposed to income taxes are supposed to fund, and their spending is
only majority military according to a source that stretches "facts"
*bigtime*.

>It's amusing how the biggest complainers of how the wealthy are being
>overtaxed tend to refer only to federal income tax, conveniently
>omitting the FICA, excise & other taxes that tend to even out the
>overall tax burden. But when it comes time to show how the
>government spends the taxes, they like to group all the taxes together.

I also note how high income people have a lower tax burden... by paying
lower-rate on capital gains and dividends enjoyed more by higher income
folks, and likely paying lower percentage of income on more-regressive
taxes such as home property taxes, gasoline taxes, and sales taxes.

>Of course the biggest sham is the use of excess FICA taxes to pay for
>non SS uses.

FICA has experienced ability to "run a surplus", and Lyndon Johnson
presided over FICA/SS getting included into the "general federal budget"
to improve the "federal bottom line".

I have noted that SS-excluding Federal budget ran a surplus during a
fiscal year presided over by Clinton.

I have noted Federal budget bottom line benefiting from SS surplus
mitigating non-SS deficit. However, I have noted that changing Federal
bottom line from red to black in only 2-3 of the past at-least 30-plus
years, during Clinton's second term.

However, I still see that with-FICA/SS-excluded USA's Federal budget is
not as military-heavy as Clams Casino claims.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

== 2 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 3:01 am
From: clams casino

dfr wrote:

>
>
>
>>It's amusing how the biggest complainers of how the wealthy are being overtaxed tend to refer only
>>to federal income tax, conveniently
>>omitting the FICA, excise & other taxes that tend to even out the
>>overall tax burden.
>>
>>
>
>Not by that much tho, because they arent progressive taxes and dont
>generate anything like the total revenue that federal income tax does.
>
>

?? Guess it's time to end this discussion. You are obviously either
paying games with me or are totally ignorant of the US tax structure.

Hint - Federal income is only about 1/3 of the overall tax burden.
Granted, the wealthy pay a higher percentage of their taxes in income
tax, but average and below average tax payers pay a higher percentage in
FICA, sales, excise & property taxes. Many pay more gross taxes in FICA
than federal income tax. When all taxes are taken into consideration,
most all pay about 28-32% of gross income in taxes where the wealthy
tend to be on the lower end of that range.

You obviously need to read up on total tax burdens and stop playing the
selected federal-income-only tax game.

Bye.

== 3 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 3:19 am
From: clams casino

Don Klipstein wrote:

>
>
>
>>It's amusing how the biggest complainers of how the wealthy are being
>>overtaxed tend to refer only to federal income tax, conveniently
>>omitting the FICA, excise & other taxes that tend to even out the
>>overall tax burden. But when it comes time to show how the
>>government spends the taxes, they like to group all the taxes together.
>>
>>
>
> I also note how high income people have a lower tax burden... by paying
>lower-rate on capital gains and dividends enjoyed more by higher income
>folks, and likely paying lower percentage of income on more-regressive
>taxes such as home property taxes, gasoline taxes, and sales taxes.
>
>

Another significant savings for the wealthy tends to be $10-15k/year in
tax free medical subsidies (welfare for the wealthy). Most >$50k tend
to get highly subsidized (tax free) medical whereas most below perhaps
$50k have to pay for medical care with after tax income. That can
shave a good $3-6k + /yr from income taxes for most in the upper
brackets..

Another is that the wealthy tend to enjoy significant housing subsidies
where interest / property taxes can be tax deductible resulting in their
subsidized housing asset growing higher in value vs. the average person
who can't afford as much house, not having that subsidy. The end result
is a nifty tax-free savings (up to 500k) when sold (as frequently as
every few years).

Point is, gross income for the wealthy can be much higher than simply
using their salary as the divisor when figuring percent tax burdens.

== 4 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 3:30 am
From: clams casino

Don Klipstein wrote:

>In article <dFtri.42024$kK1.8883@newsfe14.phx>, clams casino wrote in
>part:
>
>
>
>>http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm
>>
>>
>
> This pie chart claims military spending being 51% of federal outlays.
>
>

This is not true - read it again. They are claiming its about half of
the federal income tax is used for military where other sources of
revenue are excluded because they are specifically spent / collected
elsewhere (gas taxes, FICA, medicare, etc).

> This includes blaming 80% of the interest on the national debt on
>military spending. I find that false since past Federal spending
>excluding then-past debt interest was much less than 80% for military.
>
>

Agree - it probably should be in balance with the military expenditures,
although it can be argued that the Iraq war (and previous wars) were
primarily paid for using borrowed money.

Is there any doubt that there would be significantly less federal debt
if GW hadn't invaded Iraq?

Fact -the Iraq invasion is costing future tax payers about 200M / day -

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11880954/ - (plus interest - all borrowed
money).

see

http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182

how the total cost is building up.

== 5 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 3:48 am
From: "dfr"

clams casino <PeterGriffin@drunkin-clam.com> wrote:
> dfr wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>> It's amusing how the biggest complainers of how the wealthy are
>>> being overtaxed tend to refer only to federal income tax,
>>> conveniently omitting the FICA, excise & other taxes that tend to even out the
>>> overall tax burden.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Not by that much tho, because they arent progressive taxes and dont
>> generate anything like the total revenue that federal income tax
>> does.
>
> ?? Guess it's time to end this discussion.

Nope.

> You are obviously either paying games with me or are totally ignorant of the US tax structure.

Or you hate having the problems with that >50% of income
tax spent on the military exposed as the fraud it always was.

> Hint - Federal income is only about 1/3 of the overall tax burden.

Irrelevant to that fundamental point about progressive and regressive taxes.

> Granted, the wealthy pay a higher percentage of their taxes in income tax, but average and below
> average tax payers pay a higher percentage in FICA, sales, excise & property taxes.

Lie with property taxes which leave the rest for dead.

AND we happen to be discussing federal taxes, not taxes in general anyway.

> Many pay more gross taxes in FICA than federal income tax. When all taxes are taken into
> consideration, most all pay about 28-32% of gross income in taxes where the wealthy tend to be on
> the lower end of that range.

Pity about the total dollar value of the taxes they pay.

> You obviously need to read up on total tax burdens and stop playing the selected
> federal-income-only tax game.

Pity we happened to be discussing federal income tax.

== 6 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 6:02 am
From: clams casino

Don Klipstein wrote:

>
> However, I still see that with-FICA/SS-excluded USA's Federal budget is
>not as military-heavy as Clams Casino claims.
>
> - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
>
>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget,_2007

2007 Federal income tax receipts = $1.5 trillion (1.2 individual + 0.3
corporate)

2007 military spending = $772 billion (699 billion defense + 73 billion
vet benefits)

military = 51% without considering interest on debt.

If one assumes interest should be rated across all debt, it actually
increases to about 60%. The percentage is even higher if one assumes
all the Iraq invasion costs have been borrowed (has there been any new
tax to pay for any of this relatively new expense - if not, it's all
borrowed money).

Obviously this assumes only the federal income taxes pays for military
where SS, Medicare, gas excise taxes, etc are also collected, but pay
only for there intended purpose. It can be argued that a portion of the
gift, excise, customs, etc taxes also go to military, but there are
also indirect military expenses not under defense that should also be
considered which makes an exact calculation near impossible.

Point is, nearly half (likely more) of the federal incomes taxes go just
for military purposes..

== 7 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 8:42 am
From: Dennis

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 06:19:09 -0400, clams casino
<PeterGriffin@drunkin-clam.com> wrote:

>Another significant savings for the wealthy tends to be $10-15k/year in
>tax free medical subsidies (welfare for the wealthy). Most >$50k tend
>to get highly subsidized (tax free) medical whereas most below perhaps
>$50k have to pay for medical care with after tax income. That can
>shave a good $3-6k + /yr from income taxes for most in the upper
>brackets..
>
>Another is that the wealthy tend to enjoy significant housing subsidies
>where interest / property taxes can be tax deductible resulting in their
>subsidized housing asset growing higher in value vs. the average person
>who can't afford as much house, not having that subsidy. The end result
>is a nifty tax-free savings (up to 500k) when sold (as frequently as
>every few years).

This is the same old tired line. Of course someone (with lower
income) who pays less in taxes saves less from a tax break than
someone (with higher income) who pays more in taxes. Duh! They
didn't pay the taxes in the first place.

Completely, totally, undeniably specious argument.

Dennis (evil)
--
An inherent weakness of a pure democracy is that half
the voters are below average intelligence.

== 8 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 8:52 am
From: Dennis

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 19:14:00 -0400, clams casino
<PeterGriffin@drunkin-clam.com> wrote:

>Dennis wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 18:34:57 -0400, clams casino
>><PeterGriffin@drunkin-clam.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Chloe wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>What's the federal government
>>>>doing involved in either, except perhaps in a limited, quality-control kind
>>>>of way?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>If the highways were left entirely up to the states, I'm sure we'd we'd
>>>still have a partial interstate network.
>>>
>>>Places like AL, NC and a host of other states would likely never have
>>>built their portion of the interstate system which is crucial for the
>>>interstate flow of goods.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>All well and good. What have they done for me lately?
>>
>>Dennis (evil)
>>
>>
>Bought anything lately that was delivered by truck? Arrived into the US
>by ship?
>
>I'm guessing you'd be a whole lot happier where they have no taxes.
>When are you leaving?

Nice tap dance. I never said no taxes. I asked what we gain from
sending tax money to DC and then getting it back, versus doing it on a
more local level.

Please try to keep up.

Dennis (evil)
--
What the government gives, it must first take.

== 9 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 8:55 am
From: clams casino

Dennis wrote:

>On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 06:19:09 -0400, clams casino
><PeterGriffin@drunkin-clam.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Another significant savings for the wealthy tends to be $10-15k/year in
>>tax free medical subsidies (welfare for the wealthy). Most >$50k tend
>>to get highly subsidized (tax free) medical whereas most below perhaps
>>$50k have to pay for medical care with after tax income. That can
>>shave a good $3-6k + /yr from income taxes for most in the upper
>>brackets..
>>
>>Another is that the wealthy tend to enjoy significant housing subsidies
>>where interest / property taxes can be tax deductible resulting in their
>>subsidized housing asset growing higher in value vs. the average person
>>who can't afford as much house, not having that subsidy. The end result
>>is a nifty tax-free savings (up to 500k) when sold (as frequently as
>>every few years).
>>
>>
>
>This is the same old tired line. Of course someone (with lower
>income) who pays less in taxes saves less from a tax break than
>someone (with higher income) who pays more in taxes. Duh! They
>didn't pay the taxes in the first place.
>
>Completely, totally, undeniably specious argument.
>
>Dennis (evil)
>
>

Duh - they paid less taxes because they earned less. So why should they
pay a higher rate (total taxes / income ) if they earn less?

As a reference - Warren Buffet likes to point out, last year he only
paid 17.7% of his gross in taxes, yet his secretary paid about 30%
(about the average) .

Don't get me wrong - government medical & housing subsidies have been
very generous for me. I'm not turning down that welfare (tax transfer).

I'm just realistic to see how the US tax system favors the higher paid
over the lower paid.

== 10 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 9:19 am
From: Dennis

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 01:20:25 GMT, "Tockk" <tock1@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>Well, if push comes to shove (I never knew what that phrase meant, but it's
>fun) it shouldn't be too difficult to put up a National Sales Tax. And for
>stuff that rich folks buy overseas, they'd have to pay an import tarriff on
>everything they bring into the country.
> -- As bad as that system would probably work, it can't possibly be any
>worse than the current Income Tax.

In terms of rates, these days I am paying about the lowest federal
income taxes that I have seen since my student days. Somewhere
between 5 and 6 percent of gross income. (And I don't even have a
mortgage to write off!) I pay way more in other (local and state)
taxes.

But I wouldn't mind seeing the income tax replaced by a national sales
tax/VAT.

Dennis (evil)
--
What the government gives, it must first take.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: How long to build a house from Craigslist "free" materials?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/009019a2521ac2e0?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 1:15 am
From: "Bob F"

"Seerialmom" <seerialmom@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1185840876.532805.117940@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 30, 3:50 pm, freeisbest <demeter547op...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 30, 11:57 am, Seerialmom <seerial...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > I've been pondering this recently. I'm just wondering...let's say
>> you> inherited an acre of land, free and clear. Presuming it already has
>> > plumbing/sewer/electrical coming to it...how long it might take to
>> > build a house out of just craiglist 'free" items. I often seen
>> > construction/remodel leftovers. I just wish I had a free acre of land
>>
>> > to test my idea.
>>
>> Years ago I used to see articles on this kind of project in the
>> alternative magazines. As I remember the typical story, it usually
>> took several years of serious scrounging to accumulate enough bits and
>> pieces, but now and then the homebuilder would start with out with a
>> place to sleep on the land, like a (travel-) trailer or a shed, stay
>> on the land and build his dwelling while foraging for the necessary
>> pieces.
>> otoh, we have an acquaintance who has been accumulating
>> miscellaneous building parts for 28 years. He has a nice big semi-
>> rural lot, maybe 2 acres, that used to be neatly landscaped but now
>> has 3 storage buildings on it filled with used plywood, windows,
>> balusters, staircases, doors, piles of plumbing pipe, piles of
>> plumbing fixtures, and anything else he could get free or cheap.
>> There are squirrels, mice, rats, and probably snakes in it because
>> nobody has moved the stuff for decades. He's going to build another
>> house "some day".
>
> Ugh...don't want to do that. But I do think having the trailer to
> live in while the house is being built would work. To be efficient
> I'd think only collecting the stuff you'll use in the next week would
> work. For example the starting with the foundation (forget about
> cement slab...odds are you wouldn't get enough "leftover" to pour it)
> and framing first. come to think of it Kathy Bates had a movie that
> was similar to this except she just refurbed what seemed to be a barn/
> shack into a house.
>

There would be long gaps where some necessary component would not appear,
killing weeks at a time of work. You would need to be looking several months
ahead to acquire things in a timely manner. It took me about 8 months from the
first part to the last to acquire the lumber and roofing for my 13' x 24' wood
shed. The (repairable) nailgun came a couple years earlier. I did have to buy
nails, a few bolts, and some caulk for holes in the roofing metal.

A house would take a lot longer, unless craigslist is a lot busier where you
are.

And who would want to live in the resulting house?

I re-did a bathroom a while back. The toilet and sink faucet came as freebies. I
was going to use the sink that came with the faucet, but realized on inspection
that it had scratches I wouldn't want. So I spent the extra $100. After building
a mud-set shower, and tiling the shower and counter with new tile, it was worth
the extra. The Durock was from freecycle, except one sheet. All the hidden
plumbing was new materials - no scrimping there. I think some balance is
advisable. Some of this kind of thing should be considered long term
investment.

Craigslist and freecycle together provide me with many needs and desires for
free or cheap, making less available needs much more affordable (Like this
really nice computer).

Bob

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 7:19 am
From: "Bill"

It is quite expensive to drive a pick-up. I would think that in some cases,
you would be paying more for materials if there are few materials and the
pick-up spot is far away.

I go through this all the time. Is it worth it to drive further, get a lower
price on something, yet pay $50 for gas for the truck?

If I'm paying $30 more to buy it locally, then would be least expensive to
buy here.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 8:04 am
From: A Veteran

In article <1185840608.208148.271490@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Seerialmom <seerialmom@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Jul 30, 12:19 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Seerialmom <seerial...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > I've been pondering this recently. I'm just wondering...let's say
> > > you inherited an acre of land, free and clear. Presuming it already
> > > has plumbing/sewer/electrical coming to it...how long it might take
> > > to build a house out of just craiglist 'free" items.
> >
> > Impossible to say, how long depends on how fussy you are
> > about the house being built and what is discarded in your area.
> >
> > > I often seen construction/remodel leftovers.
> >
> > We often see old houses free for removal. It isnt that hard to shift
> > an entire house from one place to another when its timber framed.
> >
> >
> >
> > > I just wish I had a free acre of land to test my idea.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> That's true too about the free houses. Unfortunately it's the getting
> it from point a to point b that costs. But presuming you're an
> eclectic sort and don't have to have "perfect" colored tiles or other
> materials, it'd be interesting to see how long it would take just
> collecting the stuff with a pickup.

We did get a "free" pick-up on CraigsList.
Well, It was a VW van and we cut the back off it. And it cost something
in paying some back years of registration. But it hauled 21 "I" beams
jest fine! ya know wood ones.

--
when you believe the only tool you have is a hammer.
All problems look like nails.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Autoresponder is best way to Make Money????????
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/e9a6075118b9ca68?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 1:40 am
From: duke

Autoresponder is best way to Make Money????????

How Your Autoresponder Email Service Will Provide a Tool for Sending
Out Unlimited Follow Up Emails

http://tinyurl.com/2n594t

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 9:02 am
From: "godzilla100@gmail.com"

On Jul 31, 2:40 am, duke <sitinoora...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Autoresponder is best way to Make Money????????
>
> How Your Autoresponder Email Service Will Provide a Tool for Sending
> Out Unlimited Follow Up Emails
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2n594t

Check out any of the following:

www.godzillachai.blogspot.com
www.patientking.blogspot.com
www.jazmanian.blogspot.com

Pls support us by viewing the ads.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Ninety Percent Off Or More!
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/c7bc1f1bae68adcb?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 3:32 am
From: clams casino

Rick wrote:

>clams casino wrote:
>
>
>>George Grapman wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>BeaForoni@msn.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Has anyone been to UBid.com and seen the watches up for bid? They have
>>>>$4,000 watches for around fifty bucks. I am not sure what a Rousseau
>>>>Deluxe is, but it has got to be a real deal. I have a friend that buys
>>>>them, prints out the manufacturers web page and then sells them in
>>>>bars. Says he doubles his money or more.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> If is lists at $4,000 and is sold online got $50 it certainly must
>>>be "the real deal".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Do they have any land for sale at these prices?
>>
>>
>
>Yeah, but you have to transport it yourself witin 10 days of purchase.
>
>
so shipping / handing is not included?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Pension Plan question
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/96ed02fb102b3995?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 3:32 am
From: Neil Jones

Hello,

I have worked for a major corporation in the past when then still
offered their pension plan along with the 401K plan. I lost my job with
that company after 8 years of working for them. There is some pension
plan money for those years of service. Now, I am 46 years old. Is it
possible to withdraw that pension plan money without being penalized? I
know 401K does penalize you for early withdrawal. Is it the same rule
for company pension plan as well?

Also, is it possible to transfer the pension plan money into some
investment account (stocks etc)? Is it good to leave it with the same
company that is managing the fund or move it to my new company's 401K plan?

Thank you in advance for any advice/pointers and help.

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 3:46 am
From: "Travis Jordan"

"Neil Jones" wrote...
> I have worked for a major corporation in the past when then still offered
> their pension plan along with the 401K plan. I lost my job with that
> company after 8 years of working for them. There is some pension plan
> money for those years of service. Now, I am 46 years old. Is it possible
> to withdraw that pension plan money without being penalized? I know 401K
> does penalize you for early withdrawal. Is it the same rule for company
> pension plan as well?

Was the pension plan (technically this is a "defined benefit" plan)
traditional or portable? Most likely it is the former, and in this case you
do not have access to it until you reach retirement age as set forth in the
plan description. Usually this will be your normal retirement age which
could be 62 or higher. Your plan might provide for monthly payments, a
lump-sum option, or even no payment at all depending on the specifics of
your employment and the provisions of the plan.

Contact your previous employer and ask for a copy of their pension plan
description.

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 5:31 am
From: clams casino

Neil Jones wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I have worked for a major corporation in the past when then still
> offered their pension plan along with the 401K plan. I lost my job
> with that company after 8 years of working for them. There is some
> pension plan money for those years of service. Now, I am 46 years
> old. Is it possible to withdraw that pension plan money without being
> penalized?

Typically, you must start pension withdrawals either effective on your
last day or when you hit 62 / 65 - depending on your particular plan.
Some newer plans are portability which may have a different set of
rules. You will need to contact your ex-employer to confirm how your
pension pan applies to you.

> I know 401K does penalize you for early withdrawal.

Not necessarily. A 401K can be rolled over onto an IRA and there are
some exceptions for early IRA withdrawals without penalties (72T
exceptions), but taxes will be due.

> Is it the same rule for company pension plan as well?

Pension payouts prior to being 55/ 62 / 65 (depending on your plan)
have no penalties, but once you leave the company, you will likely not
be able to receive any pension payout until you reach a specified age
(as defined by your employer's plan), with the exception of some of the
newer, portable plans. It's unlikely they will offer a full payout
after you leave the company.

>
> Also, is it possible to transfer the pension plan money into some
> investment account (stocks etc)?

Some plans allow for a full payout which can be transferred into an IRA,
but typically that payout is an option available only on the day you leave.

> Is it good to leave it with the same company that is managing the fund
> or move it to my new company's 401K plan?

That depends primarily on the old vs. new investment options.

>
> Thank you in advance for any advice/pointers and help.

Best advise is to confirm any suggestions you receive with your
ex-employer as there are very significant differences between pension
plans.

>
> NJ

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 5:57 am
From: rick++

> Some plans allow for a full payout which can be transferred into an IRA,
> but typically that payout is an option available only on the day you leave.

I have a small one that allows me to do this a any time.
Then you could annuitize the pension and take out some without
penalty.

The large issue is the lump sum may be very small - on the order of
$10K
for eight years of service.
At age 48 is only 1/3rd what it needs to be at age 65 under average
pension
plan deflators.
The lump sum tends to grow as square of the years of service. For an
employee in their 20s it may just be a couple hundred dollars a year,
but by the time they are in their 60s its growing tens of thousands
per year.
Thats why companies dislike these and are dumping them as fast as
possible.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Miniature Frozen Pizzas
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/f50f543cc0dc2653?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 6:37 am
From: "Chloe"

"Shawn Hirn" <srhi@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:srhi-7821E7.19471830072007@newsgroups.comcast.net...
> In article <npgsa39uk9k4lem04ic41l3k5fblbepi4j@4ax.com>,
> Sir Frederick <mmcneill@fuzzysys.com> wrote:
>
>> Any suggestions for relatively inexpensive
>> food purchases in the San Diego area.
>> Wholesale is of interest, especially miniature
>> frozen pizzas. I have been paying 50 cents
>> each in packs of 24, but my supplier quit providing
>> them.
>
> Why not make your own? My sister used to manage a restaurant where they
> served pita pizzas. It was just a pita bread topped with pizza sauce,
> cheese, and optional mushrooms, pepperoni, and green peppers. The raw
> ingredients are inexpensive and assembly is easy. Just throw a pita
> bread on a griddle or in an oven, top with the cheese and sauce, and
> heat briefly until the cheese melts. The ingredients cost a few cents so
> its hard to go wrong.

Dei Fratelli sells a pizza sauce in a can designed for storing in the fridge
after you open it--and it stays good for several weeks. I think it makes a
great tasting pizza-like snack spread on a toasted English muffin, topped
with a few slices of pepperoni and a handful of grated mozzarella, and run
under the broiler for a couple minutes.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Photo scanning service?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/9f598948386130fc?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 7:28 am
From: me@privacy.net

"www.Queensbridge.us" <NOTvalid@Queensbridge.us> wrote:

>Why not buy a scanner on sale and do it yourself?

No computer at home to hook scanner up to

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Living on $1000 budget per month? with a wife and a kid
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/5c479f986ad135c3?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 9:03 am
From: "godzilla100@gmail.com"

Check out any of the following:

www.godzillachai.blogspot.com
www.patientking.blogspot.com
www.jazmanian.blogspot.com

Pls support us by viewing the ads.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: How does one Reduce or Suspend thier Child Support
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/ec155f2ae812643f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 9:10 am
From: "Daniel T."

Dennis <dg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Daniel T." <danie...@earthlink.net>
>
> > As for the OPs "book" every state handles support differently, so unless
> > the book is for a specific state, or *very* large, I doubt it is all
> > that useful.
> >
> > In Florida for example there is a simple chart in the law showing how
> > much child support will be. There is no arguing about it in court.
>
> Rather naive. If there are lawyers involved, then there is no
> shortage of arguing about it in court. For example, if you can't
> dispute the rate, then you dispute what is eligible income to apply it
> to. BTDT.

You are correct, of course. But my first comment, I think, is correct.
One book can't possibly cover the laws in every state unless it is a
very big book.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Backhoe or dozer rental
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/62c19fdb9643f800?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 9:26 am
From: Dennis

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 21:45:31 -0700, The Real Bev
<bashley101+usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

>dfr wrote:
>> I used a road grader, literally, when doing the dirt initially.
>>
>> I was a bit sceptical when the operation that provided it
>> said it was the right tool for the job, but they were right.
>
>A friend in Arkansas bought a used one, graded his roads, and sold it for
>what he paid for it.

I'm not surprised -- excavation equipment seems to not depreciate very
fast. It is not uncommon to see scruffy old bulldozers manufactured
in the 1940s and 50s for sale for significantly more than they
originally sold new. And I'm talking about well-used working
machines, not collector's items.

Of course, inflation accounts for much of that, but it still can be a
shock to see what they are going for.

Dennis (evil)
--
The honest man is the one who realizes that he cannot
consume more, in his lifetime, than he produces.

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "misc.consumers.frugal-living"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to misc.consumers.frugal-living-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com?hl=en

Frugal Living

Blog Archive

Tuesday, July 31, 2007

25 new messages in 10 topics - digest

No comments: